Lecture 4

January 30, 2006

In this lecture

Z, I, Sa/g and R values for tanks

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006

Lecture 4 / Slide 2

Base shear coefficient

Seismic force V = (Ah) x (W)

Ah is base shear coefficient

Ah

Z

2

Zone

Depends on
severity of ground
motion
Sudhir K. Jain, IIT
Kanpur

I

R

Sa
g

Design
philosoph
y

Structural
characteristics
Depends on time
period and damping

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006

Lecture 4 / Slide 3

Base shear coefficient

Tanks have two modes

Seismic force

Impulsive
Convective
In impulsive mode, Vi = (Ah)i x impulsive weight
In convective mode, Vc = (Ah)c x convective weight

(Ah)i and (Ah)c are base shear coefficient in

impulsive and convective modes,
respectively

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006

Lecture 4 / Slide 4

Base shear coefficient

Impulsive base shear coefficient

Convective base shear coefficient

(Ah)c = (Z/2) x (I/R) x (Sa/g)c

Note, R has been used in (Ah)i as well as (Ah)c

Zone factor, Z

As per Table 2 of IS 1893(Part1):2002

I, R, (Sa/g)i and (Sa/g)c will be discussed here

(Ah)i = (Z/2) x (I/R) x (Sa/g)i

First, (Sa/g)i and (Sa/g)c

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006

Lecture 4 / Slide 5

(Sa/g)i and (Sa/g)c

(Sa/g)i is average response acceleration for

impulsive mode

(Sa/g)c is average response acceleration

for convective mode

Depends on time period and damping of

impulsive mode

Depends on time period and damping of

convective mode

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006

Lecture 4 / Slide 6

(Sa/g)i and (Sa/g)c

Sa/g is obtained from design spectra

These spectra are slightly modified for

tanks

Figure 2 of IS 1893(Part 1):2002

See next slide

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006

Lecture 4 / Slide 7

(Sa/g)i and (Sa/g)c

Modifications are:

The rising portion in short period range from (0 to

0.1 sec) has been made constant

Spectra is extended beyond 4 sec

Very stiff structures have time period less than 0.1 sec
There may be modeling errors; actual time period may
be slightly higher
As the structure gets slightly damaged, its natural
period elongates
Ductility does not help in reducing response of very stiff
structures
Hence, rising portion in the range 0 to 0.1 sec is usually
disallowed by the codes.
Since convective time period may be greater than 4 sec.
Beyond 4 sec, 1/T variation is retained

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006

Lecture 4 / Slide 8

Sa/g
Sa/g

Sa/g

(Sa/g)i and (Sa/g)c

Spectra of IS 1893 (Part 1):2002

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

For 5%
damping

Modified
spectra

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006

Lecture 4 / Slide 9

(Sa/g)i and (Sa/g)c

Expressions for design spectra at 5% damping
Expressions for spectra of
IS 1893(Part 1):2003

Expressions for spectra for

tanks

For hard soil sites

Sa/g = 1 + 15 T
0.00 T < 0.10
= 2.50
0.10 T < 0.40
= 1.00 / T
0.40 T 4.0

For hard soil sites

Sa/g = 2.50
T < 0.40
= 1.0 / T
T 0.40

For medium soil sites

Sa/g = 1 + 15 T
0.00 T < 0.10
= 2.50
0.10 T < 0.55
= 1.36 / T
0.55 T 4.0

For soft soil sites

Sa/g = 1 + 15 T 0.00 T < 0.10
= 2.50
0.10 T < 0.67
= 1.67 / T
0.67 T 4.0
Sudhir K. Jain, IIT
Kanpur

For medium soil sites

Sa/g = 2.50
T < 0.55
= 1.36 / T
T 0.55
For soft soil sites
Sa/g = 2.5
T< 0.67
= 1.67 / T
T 0.67

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 10

(Sa/g)i and (Sa/g)c

Sa/g values also depend on damping

Multiplying factors for different damping are given in

Table 3 of IS 1893(Part 1)

Recall from Lecture 2, higher damping reduces base

shear coefficient or design seismic forces

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

Multiplying factor =1.4, for 2% damping

Multiplying factor = 1.0 for 5% damping
Multiplying factor = 0.8 for 10% damping
This multiplier is not used for PGA

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 11

Damping

Damping for impulsive mode

5% of critical for RC tanks

2% of critical for steel tanks
These are kept in line with IS 1893(Part 1)

However, IBC 2003 suggests 5% damping for

all tanks

Clause 7.8.2.1 of IS 1893(Part 1) suggests 5%

damping for RC and 2% damping for steel buildings

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

It suggests 5% damping for all types of buildings also

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 12

Damping

Damping depends on material and level of

vibration

Higher damping for stronger shaking

Means that during the same earthquake,
damping will increase as the level of shaking
increases
We are performing a simple linear analysis,
while the real behavior is non-linear
Hence, one fixed value of damping is used in
our analysis

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 13

Damping

IS 1893(Part 1), needs to have a re-look at

the damping values

Accordingly, damping values for tanks can also

be modified

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 14

Damping

Damping for convective mode

In Table 3 of IS 1893(Part 1):2002

Multiplying factor for 0.5% damping is not given

Values are given for 0% and 2% damping
Linear interpolation shall not be done

Multiplying factor = 1.75, for 0.5% damping

0.5% of critical for all types of tanks

Convective mode damping does not depend on
material of tank or type of liquid stored

In Eurocode 8 this multiplying factor is 1.673

In ACI 350.3, this factor is 1.5

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 15

Importance factor, I

Importance factor, I for tanks is given in

Table 1 of the Guideline

This Table is reproduced here

Type of liquid storage tank

Tanks used for storing drinking water, nonvolatile material, low inflammable petrochemicals
etc. and intended for emergency services such as
fire fighting services. Tanks of post earthquake
importance.
All other tanks with no risk to life and with
negligible consequences to environment, society
and economy.

NOTE: Values of importance factor, I given in IS 1893

(Part 4)
may
Sudhir K. Jain,
IIT be used where appropriate
Kanpur

I
1.5

1.0

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 16

Importance factor, I

I = 1.5, is consistent with IS 1893(Part 1)

IS 1893(Part 1):2002 suggests, I = 1.5 for

Hospital buildings
Schools
Fire station buildings, etc.

Tanks are kept at same importance level

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 17

Importance factor, I

Footnote below this Table is given to avoid

conflict with I values of IS1893(Part 4)

IS 1893(Part 4) will deal with industrial

structures

Some industries assign very high importance

factor to tanks storing hazardous materials

Not yet published

Depending on their own requirements

For such tanks, Importance factor (I) will be as

per part 4

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 18

Response reduction factor, R

R values for tanks are given in Table 2 of

the Guideline

This is reproduced in next two slides

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 19

Response reduction factor, R

Elevated tank
Tank supported on masonry shafts
a) Masonry shaft reinforced with horizontal bands *
b) Masonry shaft reinforced with horizontal bands and vertical bars at
corners
and jambs of openings
Tank supported on RC shaft
RC shaft with two curtains of reinforcement, each having horizontal
and vertical reinforcement
Tank supported on RC frame#
a) Frame not conforming to ductile detailing, i.e., ordinary moment
resisting
frame (OMRF)
b) Frame conforming to ductile detailing, i.e., special moment
resisting frame
(SMRF)

R
1.3
1.5

1.8

1.8
2.5

These R values are meant for liquid retaining tanks on frame type staging which are inverted
Tank supported
on steel frame#
2.5
pendulum
type
structures. These R values shall not be misunderstood for those given in other parts of IS 1893
for building
and industrial
frames.
Sudhir
K. Jain, IIT
E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 20
Kanpur
* These tanks are not allowed in Zone IV and V
#

Response reduction factor, R

Ground supported tank

Masonry tank
a) Masonry wall reinforced with horizontal bands*
b) Masonry wall reinforced with horizontal bands and vertical bars
at corners and jambs of openings

1.3
1.5

RC / prestressed tank
a) Fixed or hinged/pinned base tank (Figures 6a, 6b, 6c)
b) Anchored flexible base tank (Figure 6d)
c) Unanchored contained or uncontained tank (Figures 6e, 6f)

2.0
2.5
1.5

Steel tank
a) Unanchored base
b) Anchored base

2.0
2.5

Underground RC and steel tank+

4.0

For partially buried tanks, values of R can be interpolated between ground supported and underground
tanks based on depth of embedment.

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 21

Response reduction factor, R

R values for tanks are smaller than

buildings

As discussed earlier, R depends on

This is in line with other international codes

Ductility
Redundancy
Overstrength

Tanks possess low ductility, redundancy

and overstrength

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 22

Response reduction factor, R

First let us consider, elevated tanks on

frame type staging
Staging frames are different than building
frames

Hence, following footnote to Table 2

These R values are meant for liquid retaining tanks

on frame type staging which are inverted pendulum
type structures. These R values shall not be
misunderstood for those given in other parts of IS
1893 for building and industrial frames.

Staging frames are non-building frames

and are different than building frames

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 23

Response reduction factor, R

There are critical differences between

building frames and non-building frames
International codes clearly differentiate
between these two types of frames

Building frames have rigid diaphragms at floor

levels

In buildings, seismic weight is distributed

along the height at each floor level

Frames of staging do not have rigid diaphragms

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

In elevated tanks, almost entire seismic weight is

concentrated at the top
These are inverted pendulum type structures
E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 24

Response reduction factor, R

Moreover in buildings, non-structural elements,

such as infill walls, contribute significantly to
overstrength

In view of this, for staging with SMRF, R =

2.5 as against R = 5.0 for buildings with
SMRF
With R = 2.5, base shear coefficient for
elevated tanks on frame staging matches
well with other international codes

Staging are bare frames

See next slide

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 25

Response reduction factor, R

Comparison for frame staging

Zone and soil parameters are same used in Lecture 2

IBC 2003;
Frame staging, R =
3.0
Guideline;
Frame staging, R =
2.5
IS 1893:1984;
All types of staging, K =
1.0

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 26

Response reduction factor, R

Let us now consider, elevated tanks on RC

shaft
They possess less redundancy and have
single load path
RC shafts are usually thin shell and
possess low ductility
There are analytical and experimental
studies on ductility of hollow circular
sections used in RC shafts

Some references are given on next slide

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 27

Response reduction factor, R

Studies on ductility of shaft

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

Zanh F A, Park R, and Priestley, M J N, 1990, Flexural

strength and ductility of circular hollow reinforced
concrete columns without reinforcement on inside
face, ACI Journal 87 (2), 156-166.
Rai D C, 2002, Retrofitting of shaft type staging for
elevated tanks, Earthquake Spectra, EERI, Vol.
18 No. 4, 745-760.
Rai D C and Yennamsetti S, 2002, Inelastic seismic
demand on circular shaft type staging for elevated
tanks, 7th National Conf. on Earthquake Engrg,
Boston, USA, Paper No. 91.
Rao M L N, 2000, Effect of confinement on ductility
of RC hollow circular columns, a Masters thesis
submitted to Dept. of Earthquake Engineering, Univ.
of Roorkee, India.
E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 28

Response reduction factor, R

These studies have revealed that ductility

of shaft depends on

Thickness of wall (ratio of outer to inner

diameter)
Axial force on shaft
Longitudinal and transverse reinforcement

Some results from these studies on

ductility of RC shafts are discussed in next
few slides

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 29

Effect of Axial Load on Ductility

Figure from Rai (2002)
Ast/Ag = ratio longitudinal
reinforcement to concrete
area.
P = axial load on shaft
fc = characteristic strength of
concrete
Ag = gross area of concrete

Hollow circular section

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT
Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 30

Response reduction factor, R

In this figure, curvature ductility is plotted

as a function of longitudinal reinforcement

These results are for inner (Di) to outer (Do)

diameter ratio of 0.94.
If ratio of axial load (P) to ultimate load (fck.Ag)
is 0.1 then, curvature ductility is about 9 for
Ast/Ag = 0.02

This value reduces to 3 for P/ (fc.Ag) of 0.25

Now, let us see some results on effect of

shaft thickness

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 31

Effect of Shell Thickness on Ductility

Effect of ratio of inner to outer diameter (D i/Do) is shown

This result corresponds to P/(fc.Ag) = 0.05

Very low axial force ratio

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 32

Response reduction factor, R

For thin shaft with Di/Do = 0.95, curvature

ductility is 12

This value increases to about 25 for thick

shaft with Di/Do = 0.8

Thus, thickness has significant effect on

ductility

For longitudinal steel ratio Ast/Ag = 0.02

A thick shaft has reasonably good ductility

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 33

Response reduction factor, R

These analytical studies clearly indicate that

thin RC hollow sections possess very low
ductility
Issues connected with poor ductility of shaft,
inadequate provisions of IS 1893:1984, and
their correlation to behavior during recent
earthquakes is discussed in following paper:
Rai D C, 2002, Review of code design forces for shaft
supported elevated water tanks, Proc.of 13th
Symposium on Earthquake Engineering , Roorkee, Ed. D
K Paul et al., pp 1407 -1418.
(http://www.nicee.org/ecourse/12_symp_tanks.pdf)

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 34

Response reduction factor, R

Based on all these considerations, R =

1.8 for shaft supported tanks
With this value of R, base shear
coefficient for shaft supported tanks
matches well with international codes

Comparison with IBC 2003 on next slide

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 35

Response reduction factor, R

Comparison for shaft staging

Zone and soil parameters are same as used in Lecture

2
IBC 2003;
Shaft staging, R = 2.0

Guideline;
Shaft staging, R =
1.8
IS 1893:1984;
All types of staging, K =
1.0

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 36

Response reduction factor, R

Some useful information on RC shaft is

given in ACI 371-98

It exclusively deals with tanks on RC shaft

It suggests same design forces as IBC 2003
It gives information on:

ACI 371-98 , 1998, Guide for the analysis, design ,

and construction of concrete-pedestal water Towers,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hill, MI, USA.

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

minimum steel
construction tolerances
safety against buckling
shear design etc.

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 37

Response reduction factor, R

We have seen comparison with IBC 2003

Comparison with other international
codes is available in following documents:

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

Jaiswal, O. R. Rai, D. C. and Jain, S.K., 2004a, Codal

provisions on design seismic forces for liquid storage
tanks: a review, Report No. IITK-GSDMA-EQ-01V1.0, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur.
(www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/IITK-GSDMA/EQ01.pdf )
Jaiswal, O. R., Rai, D. C. and Jain, S.K., 2004b, Codal
provisions on seismic analysis of liquid storage
tanks: a review Report No. IITK-GSDMA-EQ-04-V1.0,
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur.
(www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/IITK-GSDMA/EQ04.pdf )
E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 38

Response reduction factor, R

In the above two documents, following

international codes are reviewed and
compared:

IBC 2000 (now, IBC 2003)

ACI 350.3
ACI 371
AWWA D-110 and AWWA D-115
AWWA D-100 and AWWA D-103
API 650 and API 620
Eurocode 8
NZSEE recommendations (From New Zealand)

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

Priestley et al. (1986)

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 39

Response reduction factor, R

Now we know Z, I, R and Sa/g for tanks

One can now obtain base shear

coefficient for impulsive and convective
modes

An example follows.

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 40

Example

Example: An elevated water tank has RC frame

staging detailed for ductility as per IS: 13920 and
is located in seismic zone IV. Site of the tank has
soft soil. Impulsive and convective time periods
are 1.2 sec and 4.0 sec, respectively. Obtain base
shear coefficient for impulsive and convective
mode.
Solution:
Zone: IV
Z = 0.24 From Table 2 of IS 1893 (PART I):2002,
I = 1.5 From Table 1 of the Guideline
R = 2.5 for RC frame with good ductility
(SMRF)
From Table 2 of the Guideline

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 41

Example on (Ah)i and (Ah)c

Impulsive time period, Ti = 1.2 sec, and soil is soft,

Damping = 5% (RC Frame)
(Sa/g)i = 1.67/Ti = 1.67/1.2 = 1.392
(Clause 4.5.3 of the Guideline)

Convective mode time period, T c = 4.0 sec and soil is

soft
Damping = 0.5% (Clause 4.4 of the Guideline)
Factor 1.75 is to be used for scaling up (Sa/g) for 0.5%
damping (Clause 4.5.4 of the Guideline)

(Sa/g)c = (1.67/Tc) x 1.75 = 1.67/4.0 x 1.75 = 0.731

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT
Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 42

Example on (Ah)i and (Ah)c

Base shear coefficient for impulsive mode

(Ah)i= (Z/2) x (I/R) x (Sa/g)i
= 0.24/2 x 1.5/2.5 x 1.392
= 0.10
Base shear coefficient for convective mode
(Ah)c = (Z/2) x (I/R) x (Sa/g)c

= 0.24/2 x 1.5/2.5 x 0.731

= 0.053

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 43

At the end of Lecture 4

R values for tanks are less than those for

buildings.The basis for this is

Analytical studies
Provisions of international codes, and
Observed behavior of tanks

For tanks, slight modifications are

recommended for design spectrum of IS
1893(Part1)
Damping for convective mode may be
taken as 0.5% for all types of tanks

Sudhir K. Jain, IIT

Kanpur

E-Course on Seismic Design of Tanks/ January 2006 Lecture 4 / Slide 44